IVTHE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN

[195]See form inAppendix II,p. 447.

The size of the family was, as a rule, not large, and the burden of dependence carried not heavy. In only 28 cases werethere persons other than children who were wholly dependent. In 43 cases relatives or friends lived with the family, but were either self-supporting or made contribution to the family income. There were 1,333 children of these families, or 2.7 to a family, not all of whom were living at home; many, married or single, were living and working away from their parents.

TABLE 76.—AGES OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[196]

[196]Note the difference in ages between those receiving the bonus and the camp cottage occupants. SeePart IV,p. 225.

It will be seen fromTable 76that 47 per cent of the applicants were under fifty years of age and that 29 per cent were over sixty years of age. The few that had reached an advanced age were given a bonus not on account of their need, but as a stimulus to build on their property in the burned district.

The health of the family was more fully recorded than in the case of the camp cottagers. No note was made of such minor ailments, or accidents, as would bring no handicap, but 181, or 37 per cent, of the families suffered from sickness and accident to such an extent that there was a distinct handicap, either through burdensome doctors’ bills, or by having the source of income temporarily reduced or cut off. Including the 53 families who had sustained deaths, 48 per cent of the whole number were shown to have suffered from the effects of illness or accident. This total burden should not, however, be reckoned as an aftermath of the disaster.[197]

[197]For general health conditions during period immediately following the disaster, seePart I,p. 89ff.

The means by which the men in the families earned a livelihood before April, 1906, are given inTable 77.

TABLE 77.—OCCUPATIONS BEFORE THE FIRE OF 433 MEN IN FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN

The number of those who had owned and operated an individual business is shown to exceed slightly the number that were employed at a definite rate of wages. Thirty different industries and 66 different kinds of employment are included in the four categories. The number of women who earned support for themselves outside of their own homes, and in whole or in part, for their families, was 31; of these, 17 were in personal and domestic service, 11 in manufactures, two in trade, and one in professional service. The heads of the remaining 25 families were either aged men or women who were supported by their own children, or persons otherwise cared for.

The status with reference to ownership of business remained almost unchanged; only 12 persons who had owned and managed a business before the fire were forced later to seek permanent employment as wage-earners. Almost exactly the same number of persons, 11, who were wage-earners before the disaster, conducted a business of their own at the time of the investigation. These slight variations show that the bonus recipients, possessing more than ordinary ability, were able to re-establish themselves.

Built by ItaliansBonuses $500 eachHome of two Italian familiesA widow’s ventureBonus $500Bonus Houses

Built by ItaliansBonuses $500 eachHome of two Italian familiesA widow’s ventureBonus $500

Built by ItaliansBonuses $500 eachHome of two Italian families

Built by ItaliansBonuses $500 each

Home of two Italian families

A widow’s ventureBonus $500

Bonus Houses

Built by ItaliansBonuses $500 eachHome of two Italian familiesA widow’s ventureBonus $500Bonus Houses

Built by ItaliansBonuses $500 each

Home of two Italian families

A widow’s ventureBonus $500

Bonus Houses

Perhaps a better estimate of the earning capacity of the bonus applicants is obtained by comparing the number whose incomeswere permanently increased or diminished or remained practically the same during the stress of abnormal conditions. A study of the data shows that 201 applicants enjoyed larger incomes before the fire than after; that 237 applicants had smaller incomes before the fire than after, and that in 47 cases the income was about the same at both periods. Of the 490 applicants, including Notre Dame College, for which information was secured, five failed to supply information as to relative income.

The large number of those who enjoyed increased incomes at the time of the investigation may be accounted for in part by the fact that members of the same families before April 18, 1906, were not contributing to their limit. In not a few cases, however, an increase in wages of those who had previously worked full time, accounts for the difference. Perhaps the chief significance of the figures lies in the fact that in the majority of cases there was no serious decrease in income.[198]The number of women who added to the family income, or managed their own property, before and after April, 1908, did not materially change. In the earlier period, 109 of the women[199]were conducting a business or earning wages; in the later period, 94 were doing so.

[198]SeePart IV,p. 250-251, for sub-letting as a factor.[199]The figure given for women’s occupations is larger than onpage 244, as the latter figure includes only women who were counted to be the main support of themselves or of their families.

[198]SeePart IV,p. 250-251, for sub-letting as a factor.

[199]The figure given for women’s occupations is larger than onpage 244, as the latter figure includes only women who were counted to be the main support of themselves or of their families.

The number of contributors to the family income in both periods was obtained in each instance. In 41 families the number of contributors was larger before the fire than after; in 76 families the number was smaller before than after. Three hundred and sixty-nine families had the same number of contributors to the family income at both periods, and three families failed to supply information on this point. The additional number of contributors may in several instances be accounted for by the greater age of the children, an increase which is to some extent counterbalanced by the withdrawal on account of marriage or advancing age of some contributors to the common purse.

It was not possible to estimate the exact value of the lots owned by the applicants before the fire; their exact value could have been learned only by sale. What is, however, believed to be a fairly accurate estimate is given inTable 78.

TABLE 78.—VALUE OF LOTS OWNED BEFORE THE FIRE BY APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[200]

[200]Of the 490 applicants, including Notre Dame College, for which information was secured, five did not own lots before the fire.

The above valuations are supposed to be those extant before the disaster. Although in some districts the value of lots may have increased after the fire, and in others may have decreased, no effort was made, because of the inherent difficulties, to ascertain the amount of the later valuation. It is not known why the bonus was granted to the five persons who did not own lots before the disaster.

In addition to the lots on which these dwellings had stood, 51 families had owned both before and after the fire other realties, such as houses, lots, or ranches. The value of the additional real property in 40 cases was found to have averaged $7,558. Similar data with reference to 35 families showed the average value of their additional property after the fire to be $4,052; 17 other families possessed additional property before, but not after; while 16 families reported acquiring additional property after the disaster. In practically every instance the owners drew from their properties a substantial addition to their incomes.

In order to rebuild their homes, 352, or 72 per cent, of the applicants negotiated loans with banks or with relatives or friends. The interest was from 61⁄2to 8 per cent. Previous to April 18, 1906, 61 of those who later received the bonus had rented their houses and occupied living quarters elsewhere,—in four instances, in cottages on lots on which the houses stood; in others, with relatives, in rented rooms in more desirable residence sections, or in houses owned in other parts of the city. After the fire the number who rented their homes to others increased to 74; 22 ofthis number, in place of four, lived on their own lots in small cottages or shacks built in the rear of each lot.

Four hundred and fifty, or 92 per cent, of those who received the $500 bonus had carried, and received after the fire, insurance in amounts ranging from less than $500 to $20,000. Of 204 families from whom reliable data were secured, 25 were found to have received full payment; 78 to have received more than 75 per cent, but less than 100 per cent of their loss; 82, more than 50 per cent but less than 75 per cent; and 12, more than 25 per cent but less than 50 per cent. One received less than 25 per cent and six received nothing.

The field workers found it peculiarly difficult to learn what had been the amount of bank savings of the different families. Many refused to answer the question; others denied that they had had savings; 167, or 34 per cent, of those tabulated admitted having put aside amounts varying from less than $500 to more than $4,000; and 38 that they had savings, the amounts of which they would not give.

Though all aided under the bonus plan were property owners,[201]a number were in debt both before and after the fire.Table 79indicates the number in debt and the amount of this indebtedness.

[201]The five who did not own lots on which they wished to build had presumably other property.

TABLE 79.—INDEBTEDNESS CARRIED BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[202]

[202]Of the families investigated, three that carried indebtedness before the fire and four that carried indebtedness after the fire refused to state the amount of the indebtedness.

From the table it will be noted that before the fire 179, or 37 per cent, of those aided, had carried a burden of debt, while afterwards the number was increased to 328, or 67 per cent. Loans to the amount of the indebtedness noted could have been obtained upon the property owned.

Additional aid was granted by the Rehabilitation Committee to 116, or 24 per cent, of the bonus grantees, in amounts varying from $5.00 to $500. These grants were in the main for clothing, sewing machines, medicine, or other general household relief. The aid included 59 furniture grants. In 10 of the 116 cases the full bonus was not given, so that the sum of grants amounted to not more than $500. Sixty-five of the applicants were not eligible for the full bonus, as the buildings they erected were worth less than $1,500 each. The department, it may be remembered, had agreed to pay not more than one-third of the value of the house which should be erected.[203]

[203]SeePart IV,p. 239.

As far as this group of families is concerned the burned area was built up substantially as before the earthquake. As wood was the material available, without exception the 490 bonus houses were frame. The general appearance of the houses was good. Most were painted and had adequate foundations, and a majority had basements. The basements in many cases were sublet, or were used for business purposes. The number of stories to a house varied from one to four; only three of the houses, however, had four stories. The greater number were of two stories. All the houses were connected with the city water supply and the sewerage system. Three hundred and eighty-one, or 78 per cent, of the new houses contained bath rooms, and all but three had installed one or more patent flush closets.

A fair gauge of the character of the houses rebuilt is the cost, if the high price of building materials be borne in mind.

TABLE 80.—COST OF HOUSES REBUILT AFTER THE FIRE BY APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN

[204]Includes Notre Dame College.

One house cost $39,000, another $78,000, and three from $10,000 to $20,000. It must be remembered that one of these was Notre Dame College. Only 16 per cent of the houses were built by the applicants themselves. The original plan was to aidthose that had suffered the loss of their homes. Fifty-five of the houses destroyed were, however, used for both dwelling and business purposes; 69 of those rebuilt were similarly used. Each business was on a small scale,—a grocery or fruit store, a saloon, or a barber shop. The number of rooms in the houses formerly occupied and those in the houses lived in after the fire is given in the following table:

TABLE 81.—NUMBER OF ROOMS IN HOUSES OWNED BEFORE THE FIRE AND IN HOUSES REBUILT AFTER THE FIRE BY APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN

As in not a few cases two houses instead of one were built on a lot, the combined number of rooms is given in the preceding table. A further examination of the data shows that in 168 of the bonus cases the houses were rebuilt to contain a greater number of rooms, in 259 to have less, in 62 to have the same. No attempt has been made to compare size and desirability of the rooms, but it seems probable that there was no great difference in the character of the houses rebuilt as far as rooming space is concerned.

In 453, or 93 per cent, of the bonus cases tabulated, the exact number of rooms occupied by the family and its dependents in its own or in a rented house was ascertained.

TABLE 82.—NUMBER OF ROOMS PER FAMILY OCCUPIED BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[205]

[205]Of the 489 families investigated, 36 failed to supply information relative to the number of rooms occupied both before and after the fire.

The proportion of families occupying less than four rooms was smaller before the fire than after the fire, while the reverse is true of families occupying seven or more rooms. It would appear from this that after the fire the crowding was slightly increased. By actual count, 218 families were found to have occupied more rooms before the fire than after, 152 families occupied the same number, while 83 enjoyed a larger number after the fire.

Two ambitious dwellings built with aid of bonusesBuilt with bonus of $500 and money privately loanedBonus Houses

Two ambitious dwellings built with aid of bonuses

Built with bonus of $500 and money privately loaned

Bonus Houses

The number of families who let rooms before and after the fire was extraordinarily large. Before the fire 375, or 76 per cent, andafterwards 378, or 77 per cent, let either furnished rooms or unfurnished suites. In a majority of cases the family itself occupied one flat and let the others. It is evident that the average small property owner rebuilt his house with the expectation of drawing an income from it.

If the Corporation had refused to grant a bonus to anyone who was to build a house to cost above $2,500, more than 50 per cent of the grants would have been denied. When the second appropriation of $100,000 was set aside for the bonus grants in 1907, one intimately connected with the work wrote: “In connection with the proposed expenditure of $100,000 to be used for assisting those intending to rebuild in the burned district, I will state that, as there will be numerous applicants for such assistance, it might be wise to place some restrictions upon the bonus other than those now in force. For instance, I recommend that a person desiring to build a house valued at $3,000 should not be granted said bonus, as evidently he is not in need, and in my opinion, does not require our help. Furthermore, I believe it would be well to investigate each application to determine whether the applicant has received assistance from the Committee previous to placing the application with the Department.”

The man who had to pass on the bonus applications said: “Henceforth the bonus should be granted only in cases which have been proven conclusively to be in need of it, for my impression after a careful examination of these applications, is that they are not in particular need of the bonus but could get along perfectly well without it, though possibly not so easily.”

Another letter, dated March 11, 1907, to the staff in charge of the grants said, “In making the allotments under the new appropriation I would advise that you question each grantee carefully and refuse to issue the amount where the house is already completed or nearly built. This, of course, can only be determined from personal examination of the applicant, for many whose houses are already practically completed, frame their applications as if they were just about to begin.”

The feeling that, regardless of loss, there was the right toshare in the relief funds, pushed many who had already begun to build into the ranks of applicants for the liberal gift of $500. A possible evil effect of this liberal offer was that some persons, in order to take advantage of it, incurred heavy indebtedness, which they would be forced for a long time to carry. The extra cost for building during the fall of 1906 and the winter of 1907 offset in a measure the financial gain from the bonus.

After a great disaster the efficient distribution of a large sum of money to aid in rebuilding calls for the exercise of two distinct functions, business management and supervision of rehabilitation work. It is not probable that the same person can with equal success perform the two functions. A neglect of either means a grave miscarrying of the plan itself.

TheDepartment of Lands and Buildings at first gave its entire attention to the camp cottages and bonuses. However, a large number of applications for small grants or loans to build had been early filed away to bide their time. The insistence of applicants and the recognition of their need to be heard led to the transfer of these applications to another department of the Corporation. November 1, 1906, the Rehabilitation Committee[206]referred to its new housing committee of five members, Committee V, the 800 applications that had accumulated.

[206]The Rehabilitation Committee, it must be recalled, was a committee of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation.

Committee V organized at once and formulated plans for making grants and loans and for building houses. It assumed the work of housing to be general rehabilitation, and therefore perfected a system whereby all those asking for assistance could be investigated and helped according to their needs.

There were, speaking in general, two classes of applicants to whom the committee extended aid:

1. Some applicants planned and built their own houses, but received aid from the relief funds. A maximum cost of each house to be erected was fixed by the committee, and the applicant was supposed to pay the greater part. The amounts distributed under this plan were considered grants and not loans.2. Other applicants desired to purchase houses which were planned and constructed under the direction of the committee. In some cases of this class the grant covered the entire cost of the house, while in others the grant was supplemented in one or both of the two following ways:a. A part of the cost of the house was treated as a loan to be repaid by the applicant.b. The applicant made a cash payment covering a part of the cost.

2. Other applicants desired to purchase houses which were planned and constructed under the direction of the committee. In some cases of this class the grant covered the entire cost of the house, while in others the grant was supplemented in one or both of the two following ways:

a. A part of the cost of the house was treated as a loan to be repaid by the applicant.

b. The applicant made a cash payment covering a part of the cost.

The Committee, in order to make good its second offer,engaged contractors to build houses which, including plumbing, should cost not more than $500.[207]Under both offers, the applicant was required to show that he had suffered material loss and that he was the head of a household and was able to support his family; that he was unable to secure a suitable house at a reasonable rent, and that he had secured a lot in the city and county of San Francisco on which to build. The plan of the building submitted had to comply with the provisions of the city building code. The carrying out of the plans,[208]with any modification of policy, the Rehabilitation Committee left to its sub-committee, to which the grant and loan plan had been referred.

[207]As a matter of fact, the average cost including plumbing was $682.45.[208]SeeAppendix I,p. 417.

[207]As a matter of fact, the average cost including plumbing was $682.45.

[208]SeeAppendix I,p. 417.

The housing committee, assuming that theirs was in the highest sense rehabilitation work, perfected a thorough system of investigation of all applications. It defined its purpose to be: “To assist families in need of proper shelter to obtain a home suitable to their wants and in proportion to their earnings.”

In placing the grants and loans, its theory was to give aid so as to stimulate the recipient to use it for the distinct benefit of his family. In a case where a family had heavy burdens and a limited income, money was granted outright. When there was reason to believe that a recipient could repay a part of the large amount needed, a grant was frequently supplemented by a loan. As general rules should be few in number, the committee exercised its own judgment in each individual instance. The plans therefore worked differently in different cases. In some cases the applicant deposited part of the cost of the house to be built which was supplemented by a grant or loan. In other cases, the applicant being unable to make a deposit, the committee bore the entire first cost of the house.

Many were aided who had no real estate before April, 1906, but purchased or leased a lot in order to build. Even the maximum limit set for the cost of the house was not adhered to in every instance. The loans ranged from $37 to $595,[209]as the committee found it wise to readjust its own plan so that the amounts given or loaned should be such as would meet the actual needs revealedby a careful investigation. A reliable bank was enlisted to see that the loans were properly executed, mortgages recorded, and monthly instalments collected. This bank became the financial agent of the Corporation, and those who received loans felt their obligation to be to it rather than to the Corporation. In case a house were built on a lot temporarily leased, the bank secured from the applicant and the owner of the property an agreement to the effect that the house should not be moved without the consent of the committee. In case an applicant failed to meet his financial obligation the house reverted to the Corporation, not to the lot owner.

[209]For range of grants, as distinguished from loans, seePart IV,p. 258.

The committee, it may be seen, had two clearly defined functions: (a) to administer a business which called for the employment of contractors, the outlining of plans and specifications for buildings, the appointing of inspectors to locate lots and to examine the buildings erected, and (b) to conduct a bureau of rehabilitation through which might be learned the present and past conditions and the future prospects of the individual applicants. The oversight given by the two groups, business men and social workers, meant a decrease in the number of failures to re-establish homes.

The work of Committee V, which began November 1, 1906, ended the latter part of July, 1907. The committee as a whole was in continuous session during the first weeks. Thereafter two of its members gave to it practically all their business hours. After July, 1907, however, minor details connected with final acceptances and instalments of additional plumbing and other tasks incidental to the closing of the work, were under the direction of one member.

In many instances the delays were long between the asking for and the receiving of a grant or loan, in part because the grant and loan plan was the last housing plan to be put into effect. Some families were purposely not given assistance until the house was completed, which accounted for the delay of some months between the approval of an application and the payment of the grant. Other families were themselves the cause of long delays, because of their inability quickly to build. The actual delays ranged from less than one month in 62 instances to twelve months in one instance. Fifty per cent of the 896 applicants for whom detailed information was secured had to wait two months or less.

As the Department of Lands and Buildings and the housing committee were both engaged in building houses, it was found to be important in order to avoid delays in the work, to plan some division of duties. Accordingly, on March 29, 1907, following much discussion, a plan of co-operation was agreed upon. The housing committee was to consider all applications first and to determine in each case the amount of aid to be granted; the terms, whether on a cash or instalment basis; and the general design and specifications for the house. The Department of Lands and Buildings was to have full charge of construction and cost and of the inspection of completed cottages.

This agreement, which called for a division of work, gave recognition to the dual need, of rehabilitation of applicants and of sound business management. The housing committee turned over to the Department the designs, blue prints, and specifications for the four styles of cottages that were being erected, together with outstanding contracts. The following regulations to govern the two bodies were determined upon:

1. The housing committee should send to the Department of Lands and Buildings, in each case, a description of the lot upon which the building was to be erected, together with the name and address of the applicant, and should designate the style of cottage to be constructed.2. When the housing committee received from the Department of Lands and Buildings the total cost of the house and the name of the contractor, the amount necessary to pay for the house should be deposited to the housing committee’s account and held there until ordered paid to the contractor.3. When the house had been completed and accepted by the Department of Lands and Buildings the contractor should be given an order on the cashier for the amount due. The cashier should draw the necessary check, signed by a representative of the housing committee.4. The Department should send notice to the housing committee when a house had been completed and accepted.

2. When the housing committee received from the Department of Lands and Buildings the total cost of the house and the name of the contractor, the amount necessary to pay for the house should be deposited to the housing committee’s account and held there until ordered paid to the contractor.

3. When the house had been completed and accepted by the Department of Lands and Buildings the contractor should be given an order on the cashier for the amount due. The cashier should draw the necessary check, signed by a representative of the housing committee.

4. The Department should send notice to the housing committee when a house had been completed and accepted.

On March 11, 1907, the manager of the Department of Lands and Buildings had at the request of the Executive Committee of the Corporation been made superintendent of construction of the housing committee.

Headquarters Department of Lands and Buildings

Despite the detailed regulations there were dissatisfaction and friction; so on April 26, 1907, the housing committee passed a resolution to the effect that inasmuch as the housing committee bore the full responsibility of the manner in which the relief work relating to the building of houses was conducted, and, since the members of the housing committee were dissatisfied with the manner in which the superintendent of construction was performing his duties, the housing committee made a most urgent request to the Executive Committee that the superintendent withdraw from all work in which the housing committee was concerned.

The specific charges were (a) that poor contractors were employed, (b) that desirable contractors who were difficult to obtain at that time complained of the superintendent’s treatment, (c) that the superintendent who had done efficient service in erecting the camp cottages, was entirely unfit for his new position because of his unfriendly and unsympathetic attitude toward the applicants, (d) that, finally, the building of the much-needed new houses was unnecessarily slow.

The relation which unfortunately existed between these two, the Department and the committee, is mentioned at this stage, in order to explain in a measure the long delay and hold-up of orders by the committee. It accounts for much of the dissatisfaction that existed among the people and for some hardships endured by not a few applicants. The delays due to friction made it necessary for the housing committee to continue its work after the bonus plan was discontinued.

A complete statement of the work done shows that there were 2,098 applications for relief under the grant and loan plan acted upon subsequent to November 1, 1906. Assistance was given in 1,572[210]cases, the total expenditure being $519,723.17. Previous to November 1, 1906, the Rehabilitation Committee, as part of its regular work and without special machinery, had made grants in 163 cases. The amounts granted in these 163 cases bring thetotal expenditure for relief in grant and loan cases up to $567,300.85. The 1,572 cases in which aid was given subsequent to November 1, 1906, are dealt with in this chapter. Families to the number of 543 had homes planned and built for them by the committee, while 1,029 families were given aid to build according to their own plans. The 543 families for whom houses were constructed by the committee received 543 grants, amounting to $197,942.86, or an average of $364.54 per grant, and 384 loans amounting to $115,558.33, an average of $300.93 per loan. It will be noted that loans were made only to applicants who also received grants. The assistance given to the members of this group amounted in all, therefore, to $313,501.19. In addition, the applicants whose houses were constructed by the committee, themselves deposited amounts aggregating $57,073.16 towards the erection of their homes; but this sum is, of course, distinct from the relief given and is not included in the above total.

Back to Index Next